Inappropriate, as a foundation governor you are there to represent the view of the church, not yourself. It is possible to do this if you are an atheist (I guess) but may be awkward. As opposed to a parent governor who is there to represent their own views, not the views of parents in general.Much of what a governor does is probably not unduly relevant to the church per se eg in terms of organising budgets or english/maths policies but some is e.g. admission criteria, RE policies, collective worship policies etc.

Ronaldo - all schools have to have an act if worship of a Christian nature every day, even those not linked to any church, but run wholely by the lea. Those schools are not church funded at all - they are funded through general taxation. There is no requirement for these schools to have a foundation governor though.

That is what is meant when posters say we do not live in a secular state.

A voluntary aided school will have some church funds, though mostly they too are funded through taxation.

Surely you will need to be nominated by the local church or the diocese? As far as I know it's not up for grabs to be a foundation governor. You may have to publicly endorse the Christian character of the school as well.

Apologies for my earlier misleading comment - I misread foundation governor as any governor in a foundation school, as opposed to one of the foundation-specific governors. I'd happily be an atheist parent governor in a church school, but presumably wouldn't be asked to become a foundation one.

Which leads to the question why would they ask an atheist, and if it means they can't find any suitable governors who follow the appropriate religion, this suggests problems in the board of governors that need a committed governor more than religion?

In which case, having made my position clear, I'd have to consider it.for the good of the school. Though I suspect they'd prefer to leave the position vacant, as they usually do when they can't convince enough parents to become parent governors.

Ronaldo - all schools have to have an act if worship of a Christian nature every day, even those not linked to any church, but run wholely by the lea. Those schools are not church funded at all - they are funded through general taxation. There is no requirement for these schools to have a foundation governor though.

That is what is meant when posters say we do not live in a secular state

Secular - from the Latin, means temporal or worldly. Not belonging tothe religious or spiritual. Maybe if this is not what postersmean then they ( not me) need to get a grip of the English langiuage.

As for your comment - a worldly school ( secular) therefore is one not affiliated to religion. Ie any school who takes its funding from taxes or source not religious in nature (mamon not God to use the Biblical phrase).

In my experience (quite wide partly due to a stint on supply a short number of years back when I first retired) most state schools do not perform a " daily act of worship". At least not what I would call one and certainly not what any man of the cloth ( Vicar, Minister or Priest) would call one. What I witnessed was a collecting of pupils for a little community reading of school notices and some nod in the direction of things citizenship (or occassionally charitable as in doing good for others). Nothing overty religious ( or even remotely so in many cases) In somecases the collective " act"( and that is precisely what it is an act - put on - pretend) isnt even whole school .Its a dotted feast more akin to a form or tutor time.

Now I have got on the horse, I will ride it. I am not impressed either by the way in which state schools goabout teaching RE. I am even less impressed by the number of RE teachers who are self proclaiming atheists.; How can you teach what pbviously do not believe in, probably really dont fully understand and is essentially an anathama. In a worldly school that would be bad enough but in one porporting to have some connection to religion it should not be.

I am dubious and suspicious anyway of anyone who does not share a faith who insists on putting themselves in positions of leadership ( be it teaching or governance) when they do not share the principle or belief ( or vision) of what they are doing.

It stinks of horse meat in beefburgers and its the being sold as something it is not that I do not like.

I am not religiousbut I do have an open mind on such things. I do though believe that DC are best taught by those who know what it is they are teaching ( in RE it is faith and God, you should at least understand those things and accept the possiblity of them). In governance in a Church School,it is the vision of the church in its educational role.It is not a role for an atheist.

Formyself I do not like watered down religion, ethics or philosophy. However I do believe it is important for a childto have a) a good mo0ral compass - and religion should provide thatb) a good understanding and recognisiton of what religion ( in our case Christianity) is about. Notsome half baked semi theorised point of world inclusion and boo hurrah moralityc) I want my DS to understand HIS ( ie mine and my wife as in WASP) culture - and to be fully versed in understanding that from a life stance.

So I have chosen a school who can do that and woe betide anyone who wereto bring in a governor with a sloppy watered down view like those expressed by MN posters here.

There are many schools who take that worldly view and few who will give a religious one. Leave me and those like me SOME CHOICE.

How can you teach what pbviously do not believe in, probably really dont fully understand and is essentially an anathama

Actually given that RE is supposed to be about all faiths, all RE teachers should teach what they do not believe in. What is the difference between an atheist teaching about Christianity and a Hindu teaching about Christianity? Neither will believe it will they?

Whether you think it is sufficient or not the requirement for a 'collective act of worship' means that no one really has a choice about religion in school. That is wrong

titchy, I could easily say the same but I do not believe it furthers any discussion to disparage or dismiss another poster

Often this is a big problem on MN as any comment which is seen by some as being counter to their view is too often dismissed with a personalised throw off. Either that or another oft usedmethod is to report the poster for " offence" ( which often here seems to be a code for "I dont agree with you, cant really think of a decent argument against and I dont want anyone who doesnt share my view to make a post"

Its the touchy feely only those who agree way...... the problem is that there are probably a lot of posters who might share a view such as mine but they become afraid to voice it. To be truthful I am sometimes afraid to voice it!

Its a good way of curtailing the airing of views you dont like and making it look as if everyone agres with you but underneath ,those who are not allowed to speak will think all the more . You can stiop people expressing their opinions, you cant stop them thinking - as too often oppressive governments and the politically correct have eventually found out.

Yes it is about faith in God ( hence Theist , from the Greek theo ( God) - in whatever religious guise. It is not about no faith. Ifone wants to discuss God it would be a good premise to start from to belive in one.